Why is Lucas so pesimistic about Episode 3's box office potentital?

He said he had story outlines for nine films. Twenty years later, he said he never had story outlines for nine films. That would be a lie.

As I explained earlier, he decided either during or shorly after the completion of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK that the simple and incomplete outlines he had drafted for Episodes 6 throuth 9 would be compressed into a single film. So while at one time he did toy with the idea of making 9 films, he later changed his mind and decided only on 6. 20 years later when the press was hounding him about the 9 film story arc, he simply set the record straight and said, in effect, "There aren't going to be 9 films because the story has been told in 6, and I have no plans at this time to make any more STAR WARS films."

And again, the Greedo thing goes ignored.

I provided the explanation several posts up, but since you saw fit to simply dismiss it, what's the point of trying to re-explain it to you?

Ironically, I see you really did ignore my challenge to provide Lucas' quotes in their proper context. Curious.

As I explained earlier, he decided either during or shorly after the completion of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK that the simple and incomplete outlines he had drafted for Episodes 6 throuth 9 would be compressed into a single film. So while at one time he did toy with the idea of making 9 films, he later changed his mind and decided only on 6. 20 years later when the press was hounding him about the 9 film story arc, he simply set the record straight and said, in effect, "There aren't going to be 9 films because the story has been told in 6, and I have no plans at this time to make any more STAR WARS films."

But he didn't say "At one point I was going to do nine films, but then I decided that I could tell the story in six." If he had, no problem at all. But he didn't. He said "I never had a story" for them. Which is a lie.

You're repeating the same thing over and over, which is forcing me to do the same, and it's getting very tiresome.

I provided the explanation several posts up, but since you saw fit to simply dismiss it, what's the point of trying to re-explain it to you?

You're "explanation" was to show evidence of him not intending for Greedo to shoot first. In my next post, I said that it was never in any of the drafts of ANH, and that the producer had gone on record saying that if he had wanted it done that way they could have very easily done so, but he didn't. You haven't said a word about it since. You are the one who's dismissing it.

"I never had a story for the sequels, for the later ones," he said in the Jan. 4 edition of the magazine. "And also, I'll be to a point in my age where to do another trilogy would take 10 years."

There's the context for you. You'd have to ask gezvader for the other one.

Darth Insidious, before I reply, I would just like to say sorry for the name-calling. It's uncalled for even when I strongly disagree with you. But you have questioned my ability to provide proof and I am going to lay it on the line.

DI: "He said he had story outlines for nine films"

Right, according to some posted proof George Lucas said in 1979, "There are essentially nine films in a series of three trilogies. I have story treatments on all nine." Now, Lucas is obviously referring to the 9-part plan that himself and Kurtz laid out during production of ESB prior to 1980. So at this point Lucas was telling the truth, that his intentions were to produce a third trilogy. The outline can be found [link=http://scifi.about.com/library/starwars/bl-sixornine.htm]here[/link].

However, Lucas originally did intend the saga as two trilogies. PROOF (Lucas 1979) - "The first script was one of six original stories I had written in the form of two trilogies." Darth Insidious, when Lucas said "I added another trilogy" he was reffering to the EXPANSION of Episode VI into an extra 3 films. He was not talking about the EXTENSION of this story beyond the destruction of the Emperor. As Durwood is pointing out, this 'extra trilogy' was then abandoned and brought back into Episode VI where it was originally intended. Therefore, a story BEYOND Episode VI never existed and that is a FACT.

DI: "Twenty years later, he said he never had story outlines for nine films. That would be a lie."

Lucas said in 1997 "I never had a story for the sequels, for the later ones." Right, now Lucas could be talking about two things:

Firstly, he could be talking about parts 7-9 that were expressed in the Lucas/Kurtz outline. These parts were eventually brought back into VI and were never developed fully so it is understandable that if he did remember them he may have disregarded there status as a properly developed STORY.

Secondly, when asked this question in 1997, people are obviously wondering about the possibility of a sequel trilogy (and therefore a story) existing BEYOND the events of Episode VI. Lucas is basically stating the FACT that he never had a story beyond Episode VI.

You can certainly now understand why Lucas has said BOTH of these comments. They can be confusing, but they are both justified. It is extremely unfair to call someone a liar (or there comments 'lies'), when there is a good reason for what he or she is saying.

Also, if Lucas has been slightly unclear, then it is a mistake that we all make. Both myself and you, DI, will constantly make slight contradictions or display a lack of clarity because we make these slight errors between our posts. However, our mistakes will not fall under the same scrutiny as Lucas's words, which makes it even unfairer. Personally, I don't think Lucas made any mistake as I had pointed out and I would like others to say whether they agree with me or not.

In the post dated 11.06am, Darth Insidious said "I have an appreciation for what George Lucas actually did accomplish, which is about half as much of what many of you give him credit for"

So I asked him what he felt George's accomplishments really were. Here is his reply:

- dragged elements of presentation kicking and screaming into a new era
- set the standard for the modern action/adventure film
- one of the principal creators of the films that have invaded American pop-culture more than any others
- tremendous producer, storywriter and editor, competent director
- the only living director who can best be compared to Walt Disney

These are some excellent points. This really does display Lucas's status as a maverick. But are you (Insidious) really trying to tell me that SW fans believe his achievments are twice as great as you have pointed out. In fact, SW fans actually tend to focus on his achievments relating to SW and not his unbelievable achievements in the economical/structural side of independent filmmaking with his succesful film/technology/marketing empire and ultimate influence on most young filmmakers operating today. Wouldn't you agree? Its quite obvious from the discussion on these boards.

DI: "Obviously if you had realized that the backrounds that used IBR were fake, you would've pointed it out."

I did know which ones you were talking about, the use of CG backgrounds that were 'real' to us such as the training program and many of the actual backgrounds in the fight scenes. I was not inluding them. That is why I said "The digital background of the 'real world' which is the only comparable CG backdrop of a 'created world'"

"Created worlds" I am talking about, imagainary worlds, worlds that could not exist without that technology. All the other CG backdrops could be fully realised in our natural world but were not, so that the use of IBR could succesfully apply the characters to these backgrounds efficiently. They were unnoticable but that was an easy thing to do - 'the backgrounds' - NOT the interaction or compositing.

As my quote points out, I was talking about the CG backdrops of the 'real' world. The sentinels, the skyline of the destroyed Manhattan city, which were all extrmely second-rate compared to the work done on the CG 'environments' in TPM.

DI: "that you were focusing on bullet-time"

You really need to stop this. I never applied any discussion of bullet-time except to say that 'bullet-time' was the majorly publicised development in VFX for the film and the main reason the VFX one the attention and the Oscar.

On George: Yes, I do think many of the people here give him much more credit than he deserves. Such as trying to give him credit for the effects work in LOTR.

On the digital backrounds: Obviously they weren't "easy" to do, because the technology that made them possible was first used with that film.

On bullet-time: That's the only thing you've ever brought up when arguing over why The Matrix doesn't have such great FX. You never mentioned image based rendering, you never mentioned fake-looking backrounds, which proves that they were indeed done right.

THIS IS A REPLY TO DARTH INSIDIOUS AND I THINK HE SHOULD READ IT AND THEN TAKE THE TIME TO REPLY TO ALL THE POINTS. IF HE FAILS TO REPLY TO ANY OF THESE POINTS THEN HE IS CONCEDING THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC OF DEBATE. HERE GOES.....

Darth_Insidious, I have taken the time to post proof and reason on the "George is a liar" topic. Why have you ignored THAT particular topic? You should at least reply and post proof or retract your statements, which are quite harsh when it is not as clear-cut as you have made out. The post in question is dated 5/4 6.54pm. In fact I'll just repost it added to the bottom of this one.

DI: "I do think many of the people here give him much more credit than he deserves. Such as trying to give him credit for the effects work in LOTR."

I never stated he was responsible. I believe that a person who established and drove a company that has proven to have a major influence on another company's work should be credited and Weta have done this on several occasions (I'll try and get a couple of quotes tracked). Therefore it is justified to give that person a level of credit and respect for the culminative work.

Thanks for bringing this topic up again, DI, because if you do not remember, this was a debate we were having earlier. Then astonishingly you never replied to my post (Date Posted 5/2 8.56am). I'll post the relevant stuff from this again :-

The work done in previous films was important in leading to Jar Jar, as was Jar Jar leading to Gollum. Here's a little 'motion-capture' development list and who created them.

1991 - T2 - (On the liquid metal T-1000)
----- *ILM*

1993 - Batman Forever - (Digital Stunt Double)
----- *ILM*

1997 - Titanic - (Used on filler characters)
----- *ILM*

1999 - TPM - (Used on a completely interacting character in a major role)
----- *ILM*

THESE ARE THE STEPPING STONES THAT LED TO GOLLUM

And I am one to admit Gollum was pretty special. However I at least have an appreciation of those that made it happen. Weta do as well.

Now, Insidious, please reply to people's posts on a topic before you bring the topic up again later when you feel you are in a corner.

DI: "the technology that made them possible was first used with that film."

You obviously do not know enough to construct worthy arguments. Image-based rendering's groundbreaking use in filmmaking came with Paul Debevec's award-winning short film 'The Campanile Movie' - the film that inspired Gaeta to utilise EXACTLY the same technology and technique on the Matrix. Why? Not because it was better at providing backgrounds, but it allowed an easier integration with the bullet-time effects. Where the technique was used in other aspects - the destroyed Manhattan skyline and the Sentinels for example - it showed limitations.

PROOF - "In fact, John Gaeta, had seen The Campanile Movie when just at the time he'd been trying to think of a way to rotate the camera a full 360 degrees in the bullet-time sequences" and Paul Debevac said "Seeing our Campanile short, everything fell into place"

So now you know that when you said "the technology that made them possible was first used with that film." then it was wrong as you now know. Please accept this.

DI: "On bullet-time: That's the only thing you've ever brought up when arguing over why The Matrix doesn't have such great FX"

Firstly, you know well I have been talking about the quality of the backgrounds - regardless of the method. I have just looked through all my previous posts and all my points on VFX in The Matrix have been about digital environments and backgrounds. The only point on 'bullet-time' was to say that it was the most publicised VFX in the film. The posts are there, check the proof.

I did point out that the lack of use of this method 'Image-Based Rendering' by ILM and Weta shows they are more inclined to produce there backdrops using the digital matte and compositing techniques that are a far more popular and succesful wa

Whether George will try and equal or exceed the number of theaters that EP3 will open in. That should also play a role in how well EP3 does.

But dang! I saw the lines for X2 this weekend and I simply kept on walking. Good reviews and good word of mouth has people lining up to see this movie. Even with the number of screens it opened to it still seems to be packing everyone in.

I surmise that EP3 will not open in as many theaters. Now the question begs as to whether X2 has legs. I imagine it will fade when Matrix Reloaded comes out.

P.S. Did anyone catch the little E! ticker the other weekend that showed that Chewbacca was going to appear in EP3? If you did then disregard.

Darth_Insidious, I have taken the time to post proof and reason on the "George is a liar" topic. Why have you ignored THAT particular topic? You should at least reply and post proof or retract your statements, which are quite harsh when it is not as clear-cut as you have made out. The post in question is dated 5/4 6.54pm. In fact I'll just repost it added to the bottom of this one.

I've had it with this 9 films thing. A half-truth is a whole lie, and even if he compressed three stories into one for ROTJ, he should've said "I was originally going to do another three films, but I realized I could make it one". If he had, as I've said before, there would be absolutely no problem. Though he obviously left out a good deal of story, if you look at earlier drafts of ROTJ.

You can't use any rational argument against the Greedo thing, and I think you know that. Perhaps this is why you decided to ignore it, because it can't be disputed by semantics?

He said he never intended for Greedo to shoot first. Not one draft of the ANH script, NOT ONE, calls for Greedo to shoot first. And you have the word of a man who was THERE, who was on the set, saying that if he had really wanted it done that way they could've EASILY done so.. Another direct contradiction, which makes him a LIAR.

I never stated he was responsible. I believe that a person who established and drove a company that has proven to have a major influence on another company's work should be credited and Weta have done this on several occasions (I'll try and get a couple of quotes tracked). Therefore it is justified to give that person a level of credit and respect for the culminative work.

He DID NOT drive ILM or the FX industry after 1083. He sat on his ass, dealt with family problems, wrote a bad script to a film (Willow), executive produced some others, and threw his money into projects that interested him. Spileberg drove ILM with his films. Cameron drove ILM with his. George did NOTHING with these films, except help wrapping up Jurassic Park, which explains his credit in the "Special Thanks" section of the credits.

Just as Ray Harryhausen doesn't deserve credit for the effects of todays films, George deserves none for Gollum, or anything else done in LOTR. Hell, he didn't even come up with the effects or the ways to do them, he only formed the company. I'd sooner credit Dennis Muren or John Dykstra or Lorne Peterson than I'd credit him.

Jar Jar was nothing, repeat, NOTHING NEW. He was more of the same, just like EVERYTHING ELSE IN TPM.

So now you know that when you said "the technology that made them possible was first used with that film." then it was wrong as you now know. Please accept this.

My mistake.

NOW YOU SHOULD THINK TWICE ABOUT SAYING "my opinions are much more well-supported than yours." BECAUSE I THINK I HAVE PROVIDED ENOUGH TO DISPROVE YOU ON ALL YOUR POINTS AND I THINK OTHERS WILL AGREE WHEN THEY READ THIS POST.

Everyone is a liar! Why are people thinking there's someone who's not? I'm a liar, you're a liar, he's a liar, she's a liar - we're all liars! Everybody is a liar!

But, everyone also tells the truth - just not all the time.

This argument is coming down one's definition of "liar": one is a habitual liar and another is one instance of lying or more. But the fact remains that everyone is a liar.

So, George did lie about making nine movies. Big deal! So that just means we don't trust him when he talks about anything Star Wars after Episode III until we see proof, because he may not even know what the future holds for the franchise.

No. There are some people who want to go over his every word with a fine toothed comb in an attempt to make two perfectly clear statements appear contradictory. Why these people choose to perform such lingual gymnastics is beyond me.

I thought that was settled when Lucas presented a perfectly clear and reasonable explanation.

And what "perfectly clear and resonable" explanation are you talking about? The one where he said he always intended for it to be that way, despite the evidence pointing to the contrary? Or some other brilliant and logical explanation that you haven't brought up yet?

I think that it is safe to say that this thread has run its course. No longer a thread to discuss the possible box office intake for Episode III, it has unraveled into a discussion of various other films, and as a venue to insult one another. I hope that no one is too broken up by the fact that it has been locked. I am sorry, seasider that things turned out this way...